16 bit files almost unlistenable now...

[fas42]

58 minutes ago, diecaster said:

 

Wow. You actually think your "highly capable" playback system can defy physics and make the acoustics of the listening space irrelevant. If you had any credibility, it is now all gone.

 

You confusing what happens physically, with what the listening mind "tunes into" - consider the situation where you listen to two live musical events occurring simultaneously, say on either side of one; one is in a very intimate acoustic, the other is in a highly reverberant, vast space environment - the one which is significantly "louder" will dominate, especially if it's music that especially appeals; the other event will fade into the background - it will still be there, if you choose to focus on it, but it will largely disappear from your awareness.

 

When you play a recording, normally what you hear is the sound from the speakers interacting with the room - the room sound variation dominates. What happens when the SQ is sufficiently high is that the recording sound, as it occurred in front of the microphones, or was manipulated in the studio, becomes "louder" - the message it conveys masks what the room modified version is - and the latter disappears from your awareness, as in the live example above.

 

Probably only someone who has experienced this transition numerous times, with a particular recording, will understand this. It also means that I can listen to a recording on a not especially good setup, say the speakers on the laptop I'm using right now, and "know" what the sound would be like, irrespective of the "laptop sound", on a competent rig ... I can read the tea leaves ...  .

[gmgraves]

6 hours ago, Ralf11 said:

 

started with country music

Could be. On the other hand, Instrumental Bluegrass is delightful. But when they start singing, include me out. To much like C&W. 

[gmgraves]

6 hours ago, Hugo9000 said:

I disagree, it started with people like Mozart rejecting the glories of the Baroque era for their simplistic, Paisiello-inspired "Tiptoe Through the Tulips" type tunes!  ?

 

Beethoven brought things back on track, though, and Western Civilization advanced again for a little while.  Then the Strausses came along with their waltzes!

Well, that's kind of apple's and oranges. Beethoven, Brahms, Schubert, et al produced serious classical music, while the Viennese waltzes of the Strauss family were the popular dance music of their day. Of course, I do find it interesting that 200 years later, Strauss waltzes are still played and enjoyed. I wonder if the Beatles or the Beach Boys (yes Brian Wilson is considered a genius) or any other rock music will still be played in 200 years? Too bad we won't be around to find out. 

[fas42]

There's country and there's country ... this album blows me away - a peak listening experience, every song does it for me ...

 

[firedog]

6 hours ago, Hugo9000 said:

I don't know about discussions on this site, but on others, and in many situations in real life, I've heard countless people compare The Beatles favorably with Beethoven.  Those people may not claim to "not know" who or what Beethoven was, but comparing The Beatles to him as being alike in genius is a clear demonstration of their ignorance.

 

And now the trend is to elevate The Beach Boys to similar status lmao.  I suppose in thirty years, it will be comparisons between Eminem or Bieber or Rihanna and Beethoven.

 

Decrying elitism is a popular thing, but I see the elevation of mediocrity as something worse, culturally.  Oh, and while it's apparently elitist and reprehensible to consign The Beatles or others of their type to the rubbish heap, it's okay for their legions of fans to do the same to Taylor Swift or similar.  lol  There is a much wider gap between what is required to write the compositions (and play them) of a Beethoven and The Beatles than there is between the pop songs of McCartney et al and Swift.

I can compare the Beatles favorably to Beethoven in many ways. They were better at many things than Beethoven was or would have been. Does that matter or is it relevant to anything? No. 
 

The Beatles' music may often not be the world's hardest to play (though I'd like to see you or any other classical musician "play" a song like "Strawberry Fields" - you couldn't do it)- and neither is the music of Muddy Waters. But I guarantee you many virtuoso singers and players sound very lame playing or singing their music. They don't know how to do it convincingly, even though they have the technical chops. Just about all those attempts by opera singers to record pop and jazz are totally lame. They have the technical ability - but not the musical/performance ability to perform the music convincingly. 

[fas42]

...

 

 

[gmgraves]

12 minutes ago, firedog said:

Saying something is boring or impossible to listen to is not the same as saying it isn't music.

The way that my detractors have been cherry picking my words, and using things that I'have said out of context in order to advance their own agendas over the last couple of days, has shown me a side of this "community" here on CA that I did not know existed. There's a lot of dishonesty here. Like firedog's out of context statement above. I never said that rock wasn't "music", but I have said, over and over, that it is not MY IDEA OF MUSIC! Leaving that part off so that my words could be thrown back at me, is in my opinion more than a little dishonest. 

[bachish]

2 hours ago, Jud said:

 

The Audio Precision rep at RMAF disagreed with this, as I will mildly, for a couple of reasons.

 

- We have many good measurements for the fidelity of equipment.

 

- Whether we have all of them that matter regarding individual pieces of equipment, I don't know.

 

- We are lacking measurements for equipment as it functions in systems.  For example, wires are simple things to measure, but I've experienced resolving ground loops simply by substituting wires.  Measurements of the wires on a test stand are unlikely to tell you whether this might or might not happen.

 

- We lack enough interchange of information between academia and the world of audio.  Flat frequency response is thought to be an essential goal for equipment to meet (or at least aim for, in the case of speakers), yet academic research has found people are relatively insensitive to whether frequency response is flat across the spectrum.  Is transient response or phase correctness (for accuracy of location and imaging) relatively more important?  It would be nice to know more about what these measurements actually mean to our perceptions of whether something sounds real. 

 

I don't know enough about resolving ground loops by changing a wire so I'll stick to the last point.

 

I would say that when discussing high fidelity, I'm not sure it matters whether people are relatively insensitive to a neutral frequency responce, as interesting as that is. The issue would be whether the amp, for instance, adds it's own color or audible distortion, etc., to the incoming signal.  That's determining its fidelity.  This does matter a lot in contexts like mastering. Everything is set up for neutrality.  You need to hear as close as humanly possible what you are sending to the CD duplication plant or to the streaming service. And I prefer neautrality too in playback because i want to hear as close as I am able to what the recording and mastering engineers issued.  If i liked a playback system that added its own euphonic color, then high fidelity wouldn't be a concern at that point, and that's cool. 

 

 

 

[gmgraves]

10 minutes ago, firedog said:

I can compare the Beatles favorably to Beethoven in many ways. They were better at many things than Beethoven was or would have been. Does that matter or is it relevant to anything? No. 
 

The Beatles' music may often not be the world's hardest to play (though I'd like to see you or any other classical musician "play" a song like "Strawberry Fields" - you couldn't do it)- and neither is the music of Muddy Waters. But I guarantee you many virtuoso singers and players sound very lame playing or singing their music. They don't know how to do it convincingly, even though they have the technical chops. Just about all those attempts by opera singers to record pop and jazz are totally lame. They have the technical ability - but not the musical/performance ability to perform the music convincingly. 

You're making a very common mistake. Popular music is a very commercial enterprise. It is made, packaged and sold to make money, without any thought of it being art (although it certainly can turn out to be). This has always been true all the way back to the dawn of the pop music industry in the 1890's with the widespread adoption of the phonograph and the inauguration of the institution called "Tin Pan Alley". If the music transcended it's original function as topical fare; of tunes written for a specific broadway show like the pop tunes of Gershwin (who wrote serious music as well as pop songs) or Cole Porter, they weren't intended to outlast their commercial purpose. If you are going to compare the Beatles with anyone, It shouldn't be Beethoven, it should be the waltz Stresses or perhaps Paganini and in some ways, Mozart who wrote a lot of topical music for the contemporary theater. 

 

And I agree that listening to someone like Paverotti or Anna Netrebko trying to sing a Beatles song would be simply pathetic. These types of performers can't even sing a Gershwin or a Cole Porter song without it sounding pretentious, much less more modern fare. Jerry Vale could sell Neapolitan love songs even though he was an American and had to sing the Italian lyrics phonetically because he didn't speak Italian, but again, Pavoratti singing O' Solo Mio or Santa Lucia  is simply embarrassing. On the other hand, I'd hate to hear Jerry Vale try to sing Nessun Dorma. The mind reels. Opera singers were trained to sing in a certain way. It's not compatible with lighter music. Mario Lanza could sing certain pop songs and Neapolitan songs and get away with it because even though he did occasionally sing opera (after all he played Caruso in the movie), he was not trained as an opera singer.  

[diecaster]

26 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

Popular music is a very commercial enterprise. It is made, packaged and sold to make money, without any thought of it being art...

 

Listen to yourself. You have no idea what you are talking about.

[semente]

10 hours ago, Richard Dale said:

English is a bit ambiguous, but I take George saying "I'm sorry" to mean "I'm not sorry" in this context.And so the "I'm sorry" is saying something like "I'm a bit bored by this discussion". Someone is not stating their music preference by declaring that rock/pop are worthless and saying it is all just 'screaming'. In my opinion stating your music preference consists of saying something positive like 'I love opera' or "i love barber shop music' or whatever.

 

I think it is fair to say that musical genres are at least somewhat representative of different cultural and socioeconomic environments. One could also classify them according to target age groups.

 

Whether or not it makes sense to discuss which ones are better is perhaps less useful. There has always been an erudite or elitist culture, both in music and in the fine arts. Even India has a Classical music genre.

In many sources you will find reference to Classical music as being an art form and other genres as being popular folklore; I think the difference comes from the fact that Classical music is written and taught whilst popular music used to be transmitted orally as is usually simpler in form and technique. Popular or light music genres are generally more accessible or easier to enjoy for most people.

 

One thing is certain, there's good and bad music in all genres.

[semente]

9 hours ago, gmgraves said:

But I can write it off. It has nothing to do with me. I despise pop and rock, I think it is an indicator of the decline of western civilization (and rap and hip-hop continue that decline).

 

I think that this is going a bit too far.

There was always popular, traditional or folklore. With electric instruments and amplification and a freer society it has taken a more impactful form, and "freely available" domestic, personal audio and TV has help spread it more quickly.

Consumerism, fashion and profit have made it a worldwide phenomenon.

 

I do find it somewhat sad that the American culture, and one of low artistic and ethic level, has been infecting the whole world but that is the subject of another thread. MTV India? Why? (and MacDonalds, and Pizza Hut, and KFC) Leveling the youth of the world by the least common denominator... It's so sad to travel to the furthest hills in Morroco or deep in the jungles in Vietnam and see kids wearing ugly bright-coloured tennis, low-rise pants with their knickers showing and Ronaldo haircut... And listening to a version of ghetto music in their language.

[semente]

5 hours ago, Jud said:

 

The Audio Precision rep at RMAF disagreed with this, as I will mildly, for a couple of reasons.

 

- We have many good measurements for the fidelity of equipment.

 

- Whether we have all of them that matter regarding individual pieces of equipment, I don't know.

 

- We are lacking measurements for equipment as it functions in systems.  For example, wires are simple things to measure, but I've experienced resolving ground loops simply by substituting wires.  Measurements of the wires on a test stand are unlikely to tell you whether this might or might not happen.

 

- We lack enough interchange of information between academia and the world of audio.  Flat frequency response is thought to be an essential goal for equipment to meet (or at least aim for, in the case of speakers), yet academic research has found people are relatively insensitive to whether frequency response is flat across the spectrum.  Is transient response or phase correctness (for accuracy of location and imaging) relatively more important?  It would be nice to know more about what these measurements actually mean to our perceptions of whether something sounds real. 

 

I agree with most of what you have written but as I have defended often "flat frequency response" may not be necessary for pop-rock studio produced music as it is for non-amplified music.

Perhaps if the research was made using regular concert goers the results would be different.

Pop-rock fans are definitely less picky about the use of close-mic'ing...of fidelity in general. And this is not just true of regular muggles but of audiophiles too.

[PeterSt]

3 hours ago, diecaster said:

4 hours ago, fas42 said:

My experience is even more "extreme" - highly capable playback takes the room entirely out of the equation, subjectively - the acoustics of the listening space cease to exist, as a meaningful part of what you're hearing.

 

Wow. You actually think your "highly capable" playback system can defy physics and make the acoustics of the listening space irrelevant.

 

Take up your guts and come over.

If necessary for a beer only. 

[PeterSt]

5 hours ago, fas42 said:

How much the activity of one component impacts another in the chain, negatively, via any mechanism

 

That.

[PeterSt]

2 hours ago, fas42 said:

There's country and there's country ... this album blows me away - a peak listening experience, every song does it for me ...

 

Frank, FWIW, Country as (I suppose you too over there) and me know it, is not how the American knows it. We (thus at least over here) dedicate all "Country" while in the USA there is a sub-genre in that - I tend to call it the low-level (cheap) poor man's music. It is hard for me to come up with examples because I wouldn't be able to differentiate easily, so one of the USA guys could maybe do it.

What I generally hear is that there's Folk and Country, which for me can't do it either because I think Folk is much broader (these days merely named the Sing a Song Writer genre ?). 

Btw, we actually don't know "Folk" (so go figure).

 

Btw, what the Americans think of this will be the correct stance - just saying; "we" just don't know about it much.

If I am not speaking for "you" then apologies. I most certainly speak for me in the Netherlands.

[semente]

14 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

 

That.

 

Optimised grounding over the whole system?

[PeterSt]

2 hours ago, fas42 said:

When you play a recording, normally what you hear is the sound from the speakers interacting with the room - the room sound variation dominates. What happens when the SQ is sufficiently high is that the recording sound, as it occurred in front of the microphones, or was manipulated in the studio, becomes "louder" - the message it conveys masks what the room modified version is - and the latter disappears from your awareness, as in the live example above.

 

Frank, I will make it worse for myself (no credits left already) by stating that your claim is not even the thing what is happening; It would be correct that at some stage the one is going to be profound over the other and thus the other now is masked, but :

 

There should be much more emphasis on how the quality of the reproduction controls the music waves in space (they become tighter, more aimed, more condensed for their own frequency). I mean, it is so super easy to demonstrate how a room full with standing waves - low frequency but higher frequency just the same) can be turned into a room without any audible standing waves (mind the audible please because this is the masking part) but which also can easily be measured for the energy (walk around with microphone and FFT on-screen for frequencies you like).

 

I will keep it at this, so you can all have a good chuckle. If you only know that this is my means of measurement and as soon as even one corner of choice shows standing waves behavior (like profound lower frequency) I know I tweaked something for the wrong.

And hey, I don't only play Get Back to people over here, I also let them find tanding waves spots, just for gags. Nobody is capable. And obviously I wouldn't dare to write about it if it weren't true, right ?

Room is untreated but takes into account audio measures. Point is : if I leave out the SQ tweaks regarding this, it buzzes all over, requires bass traps and PEQ's on top of it. I was there ... (same room).

[PeterSt]

6 minutes ago, semente said:

21 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

 

That.

 

Optimised grounding over the whole system?

 

That is too easy - or too general; people wouldn't be able to work with this, as it requires 24 bits analyzers to get there.

The answer would be Yes though, but what to do with it.

 

Example of this would be the testifying for yourself (call it proof) that a laptop on batteries is or is not better in your chain. From my theories ((electrical) potential differences) I already know it won't work, people will think it works for the better, but the analyzer will show loads of additional noise (which is inaudible in itself).

 

Easier to work with is what's in my sig over at Phase : all switching supplies removed (similar). But it is not even easy to do that, and people might have difficulties with a. thinking of the computer monitor (the worst of all evil) and while they switch it off it might still leave the power cord with switching brick in. Again, you won't hear noise but the sound deteriorates massively (and if I say massively I mean that). Next point is that people may not be able to remove all switching supplies, because they don't have the separate mains rings means to begin with. And *if* they have, they tend to connect the (audio) computer to the one ring and the amplification and such to the other. Again wrong (because it creates potential difference on PE (Protective Earth).

It goes on and on and does not require new gear at all.

 

Of course all becomes moot when one is of the stance that all noise below a perceived audible level does not change a thing. It is the biggest mistake to make.

[Sal1950]

41 minutes ago, semente said:

I do find it somewhat sad that the American culture, and one of low artistic and ethic level, has been infecting the whole world but that is the subject of another thread. MTV India? Why? (and MacDonalds, and Pizza Hut, and KFC) Leveling the youth of the world by the least common denominator... It's so sad to travel to the furthest hills in Morroco or deep in the jungles in Vietnam and see kids wearing ugly bright-coloured tennis, low-rise pants with their knickers showing and Ronaldo haircut... And listening to a version of ghetto music in their language.

I might have to point out that a lot of this musical "movement" started in the UK. Beyond that it's just as sad to see that this type of "low artistic and ethic level" has infected the US culture. It's so foreign to myself and most other mature US citizens that we find it vulgar in the extreme.

[PeterSt]

6 hours ago, fas42 said:

via any mechanism

 

Radiation being the new kid on the block. Well, of course we know about this for long, but influencing it easily is something else. Point here is also : it may influence about everything - we just don't know that because it FFT-measures below capabilities (OK, over here). The radiation itself can be measured though.

 

Here I just posted something of which we all may think someone like me and everybody else is dreaming nicely along because they like to hear what they hear or the other way around. I can't even begin thinking of where an how to measure this, if we only understand that this should be (?) about the impact of radiation. Let's say that only when you can prove to yourself that this isn't changing a thing to the sound in your rig, you may be correct about it. But I know already : you won't even try because it can't make a difference. And with that, all that will bet a 10K that there is a most profound difference to be heard, are fools ?

I am not trying to be suggestive, but that's how it goes, right ?

 

To be clear : I won't be able to measure this, unless it would be about an eye diagram in the USB data. This in itself is already moot because it shouldn't make a difference to the sound (because of the digital-digital domain we're in). I already do not claim that there will be a difference in the eye diagram (I did not try yet) because I now merely think it is the influence on to whatever other component(s) in the chain. Well, happy hunting with that. And yes, I hear you : shield that components better. Sure ! good hint.

[firedog]

2 hours ago, gmgraves said:

Popular music is a very commercial enterprise. It is made, packaged and sold to make money

And lots of classical music was expressly done to make money, to please a patron or fulfill the demands of a commission.  Much was also written specifically with the idea of pleasing the public.

Wasn't uncommon, even in modern times, for famous composers to be broke or even near starving. Someone in that position will make artistic compromises in order to get some cash. 
 

There's also certainly popular music that is very consciously intended to be art. 

To try and say one genre is commercial and the other is artistic is false. The truth is somewhere in the middle, and is different for different pieces of music. 

[PeterSt]

17 minutes ago, Sal1950 said:

I might have to point out that a lot of this musical "movement" started in the UK.

 

OffTopic : I find it mighty interesting to hear through the "why" of Punk. And from there the music is better, or say that you start to hear the music in it.

 

ProRock is for me the best example of it all. It has such clear messages and coincidentally those guys could really make music. Perform it is another thing, as I think Punk might do that better (once you get the message in advance).

 

Btw, I didn't live in the age of Brahms and Beethoven et all. So I don't feel the connection.

The fact that my father played the main viola in the orchestra, always practising and my mother always practising for her conservatorium degree on the piano-wing, apparently didn't help a thing. I have been lost forever in screamers like Black Sabbath, Led Zeppelin, Deep Purple and Uriah Heep. The Who not much - I don't know why (screams too much ). Grand Funk even more, don't know why either.

And a 1000 more.

But I hardly play it any more. It doesn't contain much for improvement of the playback (says me). That would be the mere electronic genres (says me but with proof). Hip-Hop can do it too, just because it is more difficult (believe it or not) for the digital system.

 

Classical too, is all about messages. But I don't understand them. I wasn't there and probably don't want to be there. My bringing up has failed.

 

 

[firedog]

8 hours ago, mansr said:

Mick Jagger is still performing, so in that sense he's clearly better.

Maybe not.....

[PeterSt]

Something else : People like @sementemay be able to recognize the importance of the BBC ~1 hour documentaries on about anything related to important "rock" icons. I just mention the documentary about the making of Paranoid (Black Sabbath's second album as far as I know). It gives you insight on how things really went and why. There's also one about Debby Harry (call it Punk) and so many more in any direction and angle.

Assuming you guys over in the US don't get to see this, you may miss out. I suppose though that much of it can be found on YouTube if you know what to look for. Here's the Documentary on the making of Paranoid  with the notice that it doesn't seem the best for stutter free reception. But if may give you an idea.